There is little agreement on the philosophy of measuring clinical quality in health care. How data should be analyzed and transformed to healthcare information is an ongoing discussion. To accept a difference in quality between health departments as a real difference, one should consider to which extent the selection of patients, random variation, confounding and inconsistency may have influenced results. The aim of this article is to summarize aspects of clinical healthcare data analyses provided from the national clinical quality databases and to show how data may be presented in a way which is understandable to readers without specialised knowledge of statistics.
This article analyzes the association between rehabilitation care practices and quality outcomes in Finland and represents unit-level (n = 256) associations between rehabilitation nursing and quality outcomes. Units classified as units providing a high frequency of rehabilitation care practices had better outcomes in 2 of 5 quality outcomes.
Centre for Clinical Research Västmanland, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden; Department of Medical Sciences, Clinical Diabetology and Metabolism, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: email@example.com.
To describe and analyse the associations between primary health care centres' (PHCCs') quality of work (QOW) and individual HbA1c levels in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
This cross-sectional study invited all 1152 Swedish PHCCs to answer a questionnaire addressing QOW conditions. Clinical, socio-economic and comorbidity data for 230,958 people with T2DM were linked to data on QOW conditions for 846 (73.4%) PHCCs.
Of the participants, 56% had controlled (=52mmol/mol), 31.9% intermediate (53-69mmol/mol), and 12.1% uncontrolled (=70mmol/mol) HbA1c. An explanatory factor analysis identified seven QOW features. The features having a call-recall system, having individualized treatment plans, PHCCs' results always on the agenda, and having a follow-up strategy combined with taking responsibility of outcomes/results were associated with lower HbA1c levels in the controlled group (all p
There is currently no consensus on best practice in systemic sclerosis (SSc). To determine if variability in treatment and investigations exists, practices among Canadian Sclerodermia Research Group (CSRG) centres were compared.
Prospective clinical and demographic data from adult SSc patients are collected annually from 15 CSRG treatment centres. Laboratory parameters, self-reported socio-demographic questionnaires, current and past medications and disease outcome measures are recorded. For centres with >50 patients enrolled, treatment practices were analysed to determine practice variability.
Data from 640 of 938 patients within the CSRG database met inclusion criteria, where 87.3% were female, the mean ± SEM age was 55.3±0.5, 48.9% had limited SSc and 47.8% had diffuse SSc (and 3.3% uncharacterised). Some investigation and treatment practices were inconsistent among 6 centres including proportion receiving: PDE5 (phosphodiesterase type 5) inhibitors for Raynaud's phenomenon (p=0.036); cyclophosphamide (p=0.037) and azathioprine (p=0.037) for treatment of ILD; and current use of D-penicillamine, although uncommon, varied among sites. Annual echocardiograms and PFTs were frequently done and did not vary among sites but the rate of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was directly related to site size and this was not the case for other organ involvement.
Despite routine tests within a database, site variation in SSc with respect to investigations and management among CSRG centres exists suggesting a need for a standardised approach to the investigation and treatment of SSc. One can speculate that larger centres are more export in detecting PAH.
Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.
To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.
A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.
Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.
The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.
The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Cites: Hepatology. 2007 Sep;46(3):922-3817879356
Cites: Circulation. 2007 Oct 9;116(15):1736-5417446442
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2007 Nov;21 Suppl D:5D-24D18026582
Quantifying adherence to quality indicators can serve as a direct measure of quality of care and provide the foundation for quality improvement. However, quality indicators for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been developed in Canada.
To develop a set of quality and outcome indicators for PCI that can be used across Canada.
A 12-member national expert panel was selected to represent practice in different regions of Canada. Potential quality indicators were identified by a detailed search of published guidelines, randomized trials and outcomes studies. A two-step modified Delphi process was employed with an initial screening round of indicator ratings, followed by a national quality indicator panel meeting, and follow-up discussions to obtain consensus.
A total of 26 indicators including six structure indicators, nine process indicators, and 11 outcomes indicators were identified by the national expert panel to be representative of high quality of care for PCI. Pharmacological indicators included prescription of acetylsalicylic acid, clopidogrel and statin therapy as adjunctive therapy for PCI. Nonpharmacological process indicators included minimal procedure volumes, door-to-balloon time in primary PCI, prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy and selected patient education counselling instructions. Outcome indicators included death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and vascular access complications after PCI.
A new set of PCI quality indicators for use in the Canadian health care system was developed. The widespread adoption and implementation of PCI quality indicators in clinical practice will facilitate the identification of practice gaps to enable quality improvement efforts and to optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI throughout Canada.
Cites: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jan 3;47(1):e1-12116386656
Cites: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jan 15;51(2):210-4718191746
Cites: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53-6310300718
Cites: JAMA. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):892-89062327
Cites: Circulation. 2002 Oct 1;106(14):1893-90012356647
Cites: Can J Cardiol. 2003 Jan;19(1):38-4512571693
Cites: Can J Cardiol. 2003 Mar 31;19(4):357-6412704479
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2003 May 29;348(22):2209-1712773649
Cites: Can J Cardiol. 2003 Jun;19(7):782-912813611
Cites: Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1240-5514583687
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979-836380323
Cites: Circulation. 1997 Jun 3;95(11):2485-919184578
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Jun;10(3):247-609661064
Cites: Circulation. 2004 Dec 21;110(25):3789-9415596563
To examine the association between patient injury claims and well-known quality indicators and to assess whether claims can be utilised in performance measurement.
Data were derived from administrative registers and comprised hip and knee replacement patients (n=34181) in Finland from 1998 to 2003. Hospital-level correlations were calculated between claims and quality indicators (5-year revision rate, 1-year deep infection rate, and 14-day readmission rate), while logistic regression analysis was used to analyze patient-level data for an association between claims and quality indicators.
Correlations between claims and revisions as well as claims and infections were statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.21 to 0.62. In the regression analysis, both the revision and the infection indicator had a positive and statistically significant association with filing a claim (OR 1.002; 95% CI 1.001-1.003 and 1.001; 1.00005-1.001, respectively) and obtaining compensation (1.003; 1.001-1.005 and 1.001; 1.0003-1.002, respectively).
A claims indicator has the potential to be applied as a quality indicator. It should be complemented, however, with other indicators or actions to improve its acceptability by health professionals and to mitigate its possible undesirable effects.